LIM, DANIELLE

Article III. Section 1. I. Procedural Due Process E. Regulations: Fixing of Rates and Regulation of Profession 2.
Profession
Corona v UHPAP 283 SCRA 31
FACTS:
The Philippine Ports Authority (PPA) promulgated PPA-AO-03-85, which embodied the Rules and Regulations
Governing Pilotage Services, the Conduct of Pilots and Pilotage Fees in Philippine Ports. The rules state that
aspiring pilots must have a pilot license and train in the outports for 3 months and in the Port of Manila for 4
months. Once they have achieved satisfactory performance, they are given permanent and regular appointments by
the PPA to exercise harbor pilotage until they reach the age of 70, unless sooner removed by reason of mental or
physical unfitness by the PPA General Manager.
However, on July 15 1992, PPA General Manager Rogelio A. Dayan issued PPA-AO No. 04-92. This was
implemented by providing therein that all existing regular appointments which have been previously issued either by
the Bureau of Customs or the PPA shall remain valid up to 31 December 1992 only and that all appointments to
harbor pilot positions in all pilotage districts shall, henceforth, be only for a term of one (1) year from date of
effectivity subject to yearly renewal or cancellation by the Authority after conduct of a rigid evaluation of
performance.
On August 12, 1992, respondents United Harbor Pilots Association and the Manila Pilots Association, through Capt.
Alberto C. Compas, questioned PPA-AO No. 04-92 before the Department of Transportation and Communication.
DOTC Secretary Garcia refused to decide on the case saying it was within jurisdiction of the Board of PPA. Hence,
Compas went to the Office of the President, which dismissed the petition. The case was then brought to the
Regional Trial Court of Manila, which ruled in favor of Compas and declared PPA-AO No. 04-92 void for being in
disregard of respondents right against deprivation of property without due process of law.
ISSUES: W/N PPA-AO No. 04-92 is void for being in disregard of respondents right against deprivation of
property without due process of law
HELD:
Yes, PPA-AO No. 04-92 is void and unconstitutional.
Section 1 of the Bill of Rights states:
SECTION 1. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, x x x.
When one speaks of due process of law, it may refer to procedural or substantive due process. Procedural due
process refers to the method or manner by which the law is enforced, while substantive due process requires that the
law itself, is fair, reasonable, and just.
Respondents argue that procedural due process was not observed because no hearing was conducted where everyone
could explain their sides. But it is important to note that notice and hearing are essential only when an administrative
body exercises its quasi-judicial function. In the performance of its executive or legislative functions, such as issuing
rules and regulations, an administrative body need not comply with the requirements of notice and hearing. Since
this case deals with the issuance of an administrative order, which is clearly a legislative function, a hearing was not
required and there was no denial of procedural due process.
On the other hand, respondents also argued that their right to the exercise of their profession is a vested right and can
only be withdrawn after the observance of the constitutional mandate of substantive due process of law. Pilotage as a
profession is a property right. It is a profession that can be practiced only after the issuance of a license. Before
acquiring such a license, the pilots had to go through 5 different examinations followed by actual training and
practice. This license is in the form of an appointment, allowing them to engage in this profession until they retire at

70 years of age. It is a vested right.

PPA-AO No. 04-92 does not ensure the pilots of any form of security. It unduly restricts the right of harbor pilots to
enjoy their profession before their compulsory retirement. This administrative order forces them to deal with an
annual cancellation of their license which can be temporary or permanent depending on the outcome of their
performance evaluation. It is this pre-evaluation cancellation, which primarily makes PPA-AO No. 04-92
unreasonable and constitutionally infirm. It deprives the pilots of their property without due process of law.
In conclusion, there is a denial of substantive due process but no denial of procedural due process in this case.